IV drips

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mitosis
For years now, riders have been rehydrated, as standard practice, with IV drips after tough stages.

Bearing in mind the effects of dehydration on performance it is possible for riders to forego drinks late in a stage (where the few seconds to collect and the few hundred grams to carry may be important - especially in the mountains) to gain an advantage over other riders.


This medical intervention may be no more than a glucose/saline infusion but cyclist should take food and drink naturally as they ride and eat sufficiently at night to replenish their bodies for the next day.

If riders can't take in enough food and drink naturally to compete, bad luck.

The bike race should be a test of a riders and endurance, not which team has the best medical facilities.

Riders are not allowed drinks in the final kms of tour stages.
It's not possible for riders on a 3-week Tour to ingest enough calroies or water normally, so the drips are a vital part of recovery for the next day.

Not true. The earlier tours were far more harsh than today's - well before the days of IV fluids.

It is generally accepted that riders lose weight over the three weeks of the tour - due to the difficulty in eating enough.

Not collecting drinks over the last few k's of a race does not mean they are not allowed to carry them.

The 15 hours between the end of one stage and the beginning of another stage is quite sufficient to rehydrate naturally. Natural rehydration works even during a race, while the body is losing water at a rapid rate - so why not during a long rest period?

To put it another way, if natural rehydration were not so rapid, there would be riders dropping out due to dehydration in any race over three hours.

My problem with the drip is not with its use for genuine dehydration that causes symptoms but with its acceptance as a daily routine to rehydrated the body more rapidly than by ingesting fluid naturally.

put another way....the guys I've raced with who have used drips during tours or even after tough races find their recovery exponetially better than through normal methods. A lot would introduce B12 etc to the solution for added benefit.
It sounds like your issue with IV use is a moral one rather performance related.

Some riders also have IV infusions of 'intralipid' which is a high calorie 'fat' preparation. This is obviously for calories rather than rehydration.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by patch70
Some riders also have IV infusions of 'intralipid' which is a high calorie 'fat' preparation. This is obviously for calories rather than rehydration.

Correct...a tainted batch of which led to the "PDM affair" of the 1991 TdF, totally overshadowing Phil Anderson's awesome win into Quimper!! 😄

Rehydration via IV is a MUCH more effective and rapid route than orally, and quicker hydration = quicker recovery. With 7-8 of those 15 hours or so between stages consisting of sleeping, eating, briefings, course scouting, warm ups, and preparation otherwise, it doesn't make sense to do in 15 hours what you can do in one hour.

What is the rational for not being able to collect food/drinks in the final kms of the race?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by keydates
What is the rational for not being able to collect food/drinks in the final kms of the race?

Makes for awesome racing....case in point, Tour 1996, Les Arcs. Indurain cracking completely and taking an illegal drink from the Gewiss (?) car as Luc LeBlanc raced to the win.

Didn't that rule also affect Armstrong's performance last year on the first (?) time trial?

Not that anybody cares, I meant "rationale" not rational. Too late to edit though.

There is no question that IV is much quicker rehydration and a great way of slipping in some much needed salts and carbohydrate and the odd vitamin.

The issue IS a moral one (in reply to ed073). And it DOES make sense to rehydrate by ingestion (ted b) - because it is the natural way to fuel the body.

Fueling and hydrating the body is all part of the test of endurance and strength. If a cyclist needs a drip to compete he should not be in the race.

Make the Grand Tours 10 days-2 weeks? 3 or 4 rest days?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mitosis
There is no question that IV is much quicker rehydration and a great way of slipping in some much needed salts and carbohydrate and the odd vitamin.

The issue IS a moral one (in reply to ed073). And it DOES make sense to rehydrate by ingestion (ted b) - because it is the natural way to fuel the body.

Fueling and hydrating the body is all part of the test of endurance and strength. If a cyclist needs a drip to compete he should not be in the race.

Counterpoint: there have been riders who have died during the Tour. Don't you think that you might be less likely to die if you have a more advantageous rehydration system? It may not be as natural or as brutal as the old method, but perhaps it is more humane. Let's face it, the race is brutal then and now both. A little extra medical precaution here and there might keep these riders going another year or two. I doubt that it would harm them.

Sure, given all the swirling controversies about drug use, spectators might get the wrong idea, but they probably don't see much of this, if they do at all.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by gntlmn
Counterpoint: there have been riders who have died during the Tour. Don't you think that you might be less likely to die if you have a more advantageous rehydration system? It may not be as natural or as brutal as the old method, but perhaps it is more humane. Let's face it, the race is brutal then and now both. A little extra medical precaution here and there might keep these riders going another year or two. I doubt that it would harm them.

Sure, given all the swirling controversies about drug use, spectators might get the wrong idea, but they probably don't see much of this, if they do at all.

If you read my post 5 or 6 up from this you will see I have no objection to the use of drips for legitimate medical needs.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mitosis
If you read my post 5 or 6 up from this you will see I have no objection to the use of drips for legitimate medical needs.

That's not exactly what I meant. These riders die unexpectedly. They don't die while they are hooked up to the IV. They have died right on the road or thereafter or during recovery without warning. Don't you think that using an IV to enhance recovery might reduce their odds of dying?

You seem to suggest that IV's are a hazard. I am suggesting that perhaps the opposite is true, that they tend to reduce the odds of a fatality by helping riders recover who don't know they might be on the verge of health failure.

I mean, why are you so opposed to IV's? Surely, when you spend millions getting a team into these tours, a sponsor can afford to spend a few more bucks for IV's. I don't think they are that expensive, do you? Any rider riding in these tours is drawing from fairly deep pockets. We are not talking about some riders drawing from princely wealth while others are begging on the street. They all have access to reasonable finances.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by gntlmn
That's not exactly what I meant. These riders die unexpectedly. They don't die while they are hooked up to the IV. They have died right on the road or thereafter or during recovery without warning. Don't you think that using an IV to enhance recovery might reduce their odds of dying?

You seem to suggest that IV's are a hazard. I am suggesting that perhaps the opposite is true, that they tend to reduce the odds of a fatality by helping riders recover who don't know they might be on the verge of health failure.

I mean, why are you so opposed to IV's? Surely, when you spend millions getting a team into these tours, a sponsor can afford to spend a few more bucks for IV's. I don't think they are that expensive, do you? Any rider riding in these tours is drawing from fairly deep pockets. We are not talking about some riders drawing from princely wealth while others are begging on the street. They all have access to reasonable finances.

Its not so much that I'm opposed to IV's its that I'm opposed to cheating - of any sort. I didn't want call it cheating before and I'm not sure its the right word - it does seem a little harsh, but in my opinion, the procedure certainly leans that way. Like I don't see it in the same class a drugs.

My first problem with drips is that they are part of an invasive medial procedure. And medical procedures fail and cause injury - and I would be interested in the numbers of infections treated during these types of races as a result of IV rehydration (they occur in hospitals so why not elsewhere?).

Secondly it is a performance enhancing procedure and, as several posters have suggested, quite a good one.

Thirdly it is not the natural way for the body to take on water and fuel. Isn't a bike race a test of an athletes strength and endurance, not which athlete has the best medical team.

Fourthly, its not like they are just replacing lost fluid. Its like...well...lets add a bit glucose, and don't forget vitamin C, and B, and some of those amino acids, and fat supplements...

Fifthly IV drips are for sick people. These athletes are not sick.

The type of athlete that dies during a race is usually one with a previously undiagnosed condition. An IV drip won't change that. If the athlete collapses after a race (or any time) there is no reason why they should not have a drip if it was required. So, no, I don't think it will reduce those deaths. They occur in all sports.

The price of the proceedure is not relevant to any of my points. EPO is pretty cheap these days - doesn't mean athletes should be using it.

Having said all that, I didn't really mean to be this adamantly opposed to the use of drips, I was interested to see if anyone else thought like I did - or even cared about their use.

I'm not losing sleep over it.

Any more comments from anyone? Am I wrong on all counts?.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mitosis
Its not so much that I'm opposed to IV's its that I'm opposed to cheating - of any sort. I didn't want call it cheating before and I'm not sure its the right word - it does seem a little harsh, but in my opinion, the procedure certainly leans that way. Like I don't see it in the same class a drugs....Any more comments from anyone? Am I wrong on all counts?.

Your conclusions about this are based upon your personal perception of IVs, the use of which is nothing new. I respect what you're saying here, but realize that between the end of one race or stage and the start of the next, the athletes are on their own time. They can do whatever they want with their own bodies just like any other time outside of a race...short of taking banned substances.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mitosis
Its not so much that I'm opposed to IV's its that I'm opposed to cheating - of any sort. I didn't want call it cheating before and I'm not sure its the right word - it does seem a little harsh, but in my opinion, the procedure certainly leans that way. Like I don't see it in the same class a drugs.

My first problem with drips is that they are part of an invasive medial procedure. And medical procedures fail and cause injury - and I would be interested in the numbers of infections treated during these types of races as a result of IV rehydration (they occur in hospitals so why not elsewhere?).

Secondly it is a performance enhancing procedure and, as several posters have suggested, quite a good one.

Thirdly it is not the natural way for the body to take on water and fuel. Isn't a bike race a test of an athletes strength and endurance, not which athlete has the best medical team.

Fourthly, its not like they are just replacing lost fluid. Its like...well...lets add a bit glucose, and don't forget vitamin C, and B, and some of those amino acids, and fat supplements...

Fifthly IV drips are for sick people. These athletes are not sick.

The type of athlete that dies during a race is usually one with a previously undiagnosed condition. An IV drip won't change that. If the athlete collapses after a race (or any time) there is no reason why they should not have a drip if it was required. So, no, I don't think it will reduce those deaths. They occur in all sports.

The price of the proceedure is not relevant to any of my points. EPO is pretty cheap these days - doesn't mean athletes should be using it.

Having said all that, I didn't really mean to be this adamantly opposed to the use of drips, I was interested to see if anyone else thought like I did - or even cared about their use.

I'm not losing sleep over it.

Any more comments from anyone? Am I wrong on all counts?.

You make some excellent points here. I guess the rider has to balance the risks with the rewards. I would say that in my everyday life, which includes long bike rides but not in an official racing capacity, I would never even consider using IV's. There simply is no reason to. However, if I were riding in the Tour de France, the most grueling and physically fatiguing event in the world, I would probably lean toward using IV's, especially if the others were. My guess is that a risk of infection is far less than my risk of the effects of exhaustion. These other risks might include dehydration, or even loss of concentration. I think the loss of concentration risk is the greatest risk in this race. All it takes is one bad accident to end your career or lose your life. I would say that a properly recovered body is much more likely to think clearly than one which has not properly recovered, and you never know when you will need that split second of clear-headed decisiveness. So any way to enhance recovery and still stay within the rules would seem to work greatly in my favor.

I wanted to add something else on this. I think that trusting the team doctor is not necessarily in the best interest of staying clean from drugs according to what some of the riders have said. So I would suggest that the IV's better be obtained from a very reliable source not associated or with an interest in winning. This would eliminate the possibility that the team doctor might secretly add some kind of doping substance to the IV.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by gntlmn
That's not exactly what I meant. These riders die unexpectedly. They don't die while they are hooked up to the IV. They have died right on the road or thereafter or during recovery without warning. Don't you think that using an IV to enhance recovery might reduce their odds of dying?

You seem to suggest that IV's are a hazard. I am suggesting that perhaps the opposite is true, that they tend to reduce the odds of a fatality by helping riders recover who don't know they might be on the verge of health failure.

I mean, why are you so opposed to IV's? Surely, when you spend millions getting a team into these tours, a sponsor can afford to spend a few more bucks for IV's. I don't think they are that expensive, do you? Any rider riding in these tours is drawing from fairly deep pockets. We are not talking about some riders drawing from princely wealth while others are begging on the street. They all have access to reasonable finances.

Bump